OSHA Inspection: FLIP IT, LLC

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,164 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(i): Each employer who had a workplace or operation covered by 29 CFR 1926.62 did not initially determine if any employee was exposed to lead at or above the action level of 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air (30ug/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, the employer had not conducted an employee exposure assessment to determine whether employees were exposed to lead while performing demolition-type work in a house built in 1915.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not collect personal samples representative of a full shift, including at least one sample for each job classification in each work area, either for each shift or for the shift with the highest exposure level:  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees were performing demolition-type activities and removing materials from inside a house built in 1915.  The employer had not conducted an employee exposure assessment to determine whether the employees were being exposed to lead while doing this work.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,164 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment, as required in 1926.62(d), and documented that the employee(s) performing any of the listed tasks was not exposed above the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the employer did not treat affected employee(s) as if they were exposed above the PEL, and not in excess of ten times the PEL, and did not implement employee protective measures prescribed in 1926.62(d)(2)(v).  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees were conducting demolition-type activities in a house built in 1915 that had been destroyed by fire.  The employees were observed removing materials from the basement area to a dumpster.  None of the employees were using appropriate personal protective equipment and they were not following lead-safe work practices.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(ii): When the employer had any reason to believe that employee(s) had been exposed to lead in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) while performing a task not listed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required by 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and documented that the employee's lead exposure was not above the PEL, the employer did not treat the employee as if the employee was exposed above the PEL and did not implement employee protective measures as prescribed in 29 CFR 19126.62(d)(2)(v):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees were not provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize their exposure to lead while conducting demolition-type activities in a house built in 1915.  The employer had not conducted an exposure assessment to determine whether their exposure exceeded the PEL of 50 ug/m3; therefore, PPE use was required as an interim measure of protection.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,164 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(A): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with appropriate respiratory protection in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(f):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees were performing demolition-type activities in a 3-family house that had been built in 1915 and was destroyed by fire in 2016.  The employer had not performed an exposure assessment to determine their lead exposure and did not require employees to wear appropriate respiratory protection.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(1)(iv): Respirators were not used during periods when respirators were required to provide interim protection for employees while they performed the operations specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, the employer did not ensure that employees conducting demolition work in the basement of a house built in 1915 used NIOSH-approved respirators to protect themselves from exposure to lead.  No employee exposure assessment had been done.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,164 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(B): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(g):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:      On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, the employer did not provide employees with appropriate personal protective equipment to minimize or prevent their exposure to lead while conducting demolition activities in a house built in 1915.  The employer had not conducted an exposure assessment.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1):  Where an employee is exposed to lead as interim protection for employees performing tasks as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the employer shall provide at no cost to the employee and assure that the employee uses appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevents contamination of the employee and the employee's garments such as, but not limited to:  (i)  Coveralls or similar full-body work clothing;  (ii)  Gloves, hats, and shoes or disposable shoe coverlets; and  (iii)  Face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective equipment which complies with 1910.133 of this chapter.  (A)  The employer did not provide at no cost to the employee and assure that the employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment as required.  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, the employer did not ensure that employees who were removing building materials from a fire-damaged house built in 1915 wore personal protective equipment to protect them from exposure to lead.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,164 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(E): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with biological monitoring in accordance with 1926.62(j)(1)(i), to consist of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels:  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees were conducting demolition-type activities in a 3-family house built in 1915 and destroyed by fire in 2016.  The employer did not provide them with biological monitoring for blood lead levels.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Abate by

Mar 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(j)(1)(i):  The employer shall make available initial medical surveillance to employees occupationally exposed on any day to lead at or above the action level. Initial medical surveillance consists of biological monitoring in the form of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels.  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:      On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, employees who were conducting demolition activities in a house built in 1915 were not provided with biological monitoring to determine their baseline blood lead levels.

Issued

Jan 17, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9020

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(2)(i): Before work subject to this standard began, the building and/or facility owner(s) did not determine the presence, location and quantity of asbestos containing material (ACM) and/or presumed asbestos containing material (PACM) at the worksite pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(1):  116 WEST STREET, NEW BRITAIN, CT:  On or about and at times prior to October 17, 2018, the employer did not have an asbestos survey conducted and was not aware of whether asbestos was present in the building.  The employer had three laborers working inside the building removing materials from the basement area.